The number of "justifiable homicide" judgments has tripled since "syg"

EX1: I'm driving down a dark country road and a pedestrian throws a rock at my car
before syg - I have a gun, but I am legally OBLIGATED to drive away
with syd - I have a gun, and I am legally allowed to claim I was scared and I can kill him.

EX2: I am a drug dealer and I see a competitor seated on a stoop eating a sandwich.
before syg - I have a gun, but I am legally OBLIGATED to walk away
with syd - I have a gun, and I am legally allowed to claim I was scared and I can kill him.

69 Comments

"It is the Zimmerman mindset that must be found guilty—far more than the man himself. It is a mindset that views black men and boys as nothing but a threat, good for nothing, up to no good no matter who they are or what they are doing. It is the Zimmerman mindset that has birthed a penal system unprecedented in world history, and relegated millions to a permanent undercaste."

This is not the time for a few marches that soon dissipate as we drift back into the fog of faineance — watching fake reality television as our actual realities become ever more grim, gawking at the sexting life of Carlos Danger as our own lives become more dangerous, fawning over royal British babies as our own children are gunned down.

This is yet another moment when America should take stock of where the power structures are leading us, how they play on our fears — fan our fears — to feed their fortunes.

On no subject is this more clear than on the subject of guns.

While it is proper and necessary to analyze the case in which George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin for what it says about profiling and police practices, it is possibly more important to analyze what it says about our increasingly vigilante-oriented gun culture.

The industry and its lobby have successfully pushed two fallacies: that the Second Amendment is under siege and so are law-abiding citizens.

They endlessly preach that more guns make us safer and any attempt at regulation is an injury to freedom. And while the rest of us have arguments about Constitutional intent and gun-use statistics, the streets run red with the blood of the slain, and the gun industry laughs all the way to the bank.

Gun sales have surged. And our laws are quickly being adjusted to allow people to carry those guns everywhere they go and to give legal cover to use lethal force when nonlethal options are available.

This is our America in a most frightful time.

When Illinois — which has experienced extraordinary carnage in its largest city — enacted legislation this month allowing the concealed carrying of firearms, it lost its place as the lone holdout. Now “concealed carry” is the law in all 50 states.

And as The Wall Street Journal reported this month, “concealed carry” permit applications are also surging while restrictions are being loosened. Do we really need to have our guns with us in church, or at the bar? More states are answering that question in the affirmative.

And now that more people are walking around with weapons dangling from their bodies, states have moved to make the use of those guns more justifiable.

Florida passed the first Stand Your Ground law (or “shoot first” law, as some have called it) in 2005. It allows a person to use deadly force if he or she is afraid of being killed or seriously injured. In Florida, that right to kill even extends to an initial aggressor.

After Florida’s law, other states quickly followed with the help and support of the N.R.A. and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Ironically, the N.R.A. and other advocates pushed the laws in part as protection for women, those who were victims of domestic violence and those who might be victimized away from home.

The N.R.A.’s former president, Marion Hammer, argued in support of the bill in 2005 when she was an N.R.A. lobbyist: “You can’t expect a victim to wait and ask, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, are you going to rape me and kill me, or are you just going to beat me up and steal my television?’ ”

But, of course, the law is rarely used by women in those circumstances. The Tampa Bay Times looked at 235 cases in Florida, spanning 2005 to 2013, in which Stand Your Ground was invoked and found that only 33 of them were domestic disputes or arguments, and that in most of those cases men invoked the law, not women.

In fact, nearly as many people claimed Stand Your Ground in the “fight at bar/party” category as in domestic disputes.

And not only is the law rarely being invoked by battered women, it’s often invoked by hardened criminals. According to an article published last year by The Tampa Bay Times:

“All told, 119 people are known to have killed someone and invoked stand your ground. Those people have been arrested 327 times in incidents involving violence, property crimes, drugs, weapons or probation violations.”

And, as the paper pointed out, “more than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.”

In fact, after Marissa Alexander, a battered Jacksonville wife, fired a warning shot at her abusive husband (to make him get out of the house, she said), her Stand Your Ground motion was denied. She is now facing a 20-year sentence.

Something is wrong here. We are not being made more secure, we are being made more barbaric. These laws are an abomination and an affront to morality and common sense. We can’t allow ourselves to be pawns in the gun industry’s profiteering. We are real people, and people have power.

Attorney General Eric Holder told the N.A.A.C.P. last week: “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken.”

We must all stress this point, and fight and not get weary. We must stop thinking of politics as sport and spectacle and remember that it bends in response to pressure. These laws must be reviewed and adjusted. On this issue we, as Americans of good conscience, must stand our ground.

•

I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.

In your dreams.Ban guns? That's like saying ban gangs. In the real world guns exist and they're not going away. So whatever your solution is you have to assume guns will still be legal for the foreseeable future.

I understand your passion against guns. I'm just saying a gun ban is almost impossible.

FACTS:
There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
suicide.
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ).
The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them.If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

Banning guns is little more than the creation of a new black market. Also the reason the right to bear "arms" is stated thus is to prohibit the possession of a grenade launcher. These "arms" or those of a similar nature would have been considered "artillery." And I think the distinction is historically clear.

OK then. People won't register their guns. People will also keep their 50 round magazines. The more some people want to curtail peoples gun rights, the more gun owners will resist. Legislating guns out of existence won't work. Use the drug laws as an example.

When the general population is armed there is small chance of a totalitarian govt. Thats why the 2nd amendment was written and put into the bill of rights. " a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined but they should have suffcient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who would attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government" George Washington. "The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it" Thomas Jefferson. "I ask sir,what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them" Geroge Mason ( co-author of the 2nd amendment). "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of disarming a whole nation of arms as the blackest" Gandhi

Number two was ratified to promote an armed militia to protect the United States from the overthrow of invaders (like the British or the South)! Now we have a military, and the militia is no longer needed. You fucking yahoo gun nuts don't even bother to read your precious #2. We should have repealed #2 sometime after the Civil War, but that war still hasn't ended in some parts of the country. Now this unfinished business has festered into an intolerable problem that kills thousands of Americans every year. You can't be OK with that!! You can't be saying that you want unfettered/unregulated gun ownership no matter how many people it kills!! Can you??

EX! - Throwing a rock at a truck is not legal justification to start shooting. You're only allowed to use deadly force if your life or serious injury is threatened. In this example you would go to jail regardless of SYG.

EX2 - You can legally claim anything. Proving it is another issue. Even without SYG you could say you had no chance to retreat.

READ THE SYG LAW and the zimmerman jury instructions-
If you FEEL threatened - you can kill

Florida’s how to commit legal murder manual:
1> Find you victim in public with no witnesses
2> Kill him
3> Say “I was afraid for my life”

From your friends at the NRA & ALEC
The Florida Stand Your Ground Law: 776.012
… a person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;…

Incident date: March 27, 2006
What happened: Michael D. Frazzini, 35, went to his mother's house to investigate claims that neighbors were harassing her, specifically 22-year-old Corey Rasmussen, who, she said, had taken her car keys. Frazzini, dressed in sweat clothes and a camouflage mask, hid in the back yard. When the Rasmussens spotted someone behind the house, Corey Rasmussen jumped the fence into a utility easement where they encountered Michael Frazzini carrying something in his hand. It was a small souvenir baseball bat. Corey could have left but did not leave. Corey's father, Todd, instructed his daughter to retrieve his .357 revolver. He saw his son and the masked man (Michael) facing off, claimed that he yelled a warning and then fired one shot into Frazzini's chest, killing him.
The outcome: Not charged – stand your ground.

Incident date: June 14, 2009
What happened: Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard. A witness to the shooting said Huse was turning to leave when he was shot and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."
The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law – stand your ground - there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.

EX-1 you have no claim to kill someone because you are scared
EX-2 You have no claim to kill someone because you are scared.

Apparently you are not familiar with just how things work when a person is being attacked.

So let me put it in perspective

Zimmerman was in his car when TM walked by it.
Zimmerman told the police and they said not to follow him.
Zimmerman told the police he would call them back with info where he could be reached.
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and proceeded to walk down to the other end of the complex behind the apartments.
Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when TM "sucker punched" him
Zimmerman was knocked to the ground
Zimmerman was on the ground with TM on top of him
Zimmermans head was being pummeled into the concrete walkway by TM
Zimmerman was screaming for help with TM on top of him pummeling his head into the concrete walkway.
Zimmerman didn't know who TM was
Zimmerman didn't know if TM had a gun on him as it was dark
Zimmerman didn't know if TM had a knife on him as it was dark
Zimmerman was in fear for his life
Zimmerman shot TM

TM after he passed Zimmermans vehicle, walked to the front of the complex
TM walked by the front door of his apartment (verified by the conversation with his girlfriend on the phone at the time)
TM walked passed his apartment door and proceeded to the rear of the apartment
TM knew Zimmerman was in the rear of the apartment
TM approached Zimmerman
TM after a few "kind words" sucker punched Zimmerman
TM knocked Zimmerman to the ground
TM was on top of Zimmerman as verified by Mr. Good
Tm was pummeling Zimmermans head into the concrete walkway
TM didn't get off Zimmerman after he proved his point by "sucker punching him
TM continued to beat on Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was screaming for help
TM was shot by Zimmerman.

Now this perspective is what was presented to the jury by the witnesses and Zimmermans testimony - without an attorney present might I add.

So was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to get out of his vehicle NO
Was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to walk down the sidewalk behind the apartments No
Was it "illegal" for TM to approach Zimmerman - NO
Was it "illegal" for TM to call Zimmerman a "Crazy whit ass cracker" - NO?
Was it "illegal" for TM to "sucker punch" Zimmerman - YES
Was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to shoot TM because he was in "fear for his life" NO.

Changing or eliminating stand your ground is a waste of time. Concentrate on an amendment. The only way to reduce gun violence is to alter the second amendment and eliminate the right to carry a gun.

It's unclear if there are more killings or if more simply fit into the self defense category because of stand your ground. Either way it doesn't matter. If people actually want to stop gun violence they will have to eliminate guns.

FACTS:
There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
suicide.
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ).
The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them.If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it willreduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless when storing your guns

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country
adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That line could be between you and an AR15.

And of course if we stopped money going from advocacy groups & corporations to buy politicians, this would be a very big step in the right direction
Watch our videos: Hedges, Kucinich, Warren, Chomsky , Sanders ,
Romney, Reich, Hartmann, Maddow, Nader, Feingold, Jefferson
And read our analysis of Corporate Personhood & Citizens United & evaluate the national polls that prove the truth. See the new HJR29

I've read your solution before in several other threads, I simply disagree with your approach. If you wish to end gun violence you need to get the guns out of the hands of people. While the focus is often on crime it's suicide that claims the most lives (over 60% of gun deaths). Those suicides are not going to be concerned about insurance, training, bullet samples or any other law you put into effect. I doubt many criminals would be too worried about complying with the law either.

Reducing gun violence may seem to be a more realistic goal, but the number of deaths due to assault weapons or deaths labeled justifiable homicide are a drop in the bucket. Changing "stand your ground" laws isn't likely to effect the numbers at all. Assault weapons account for such a small number of gun deaths that they don't even get their own category in the FBI statistics, they are tossed in with shotguns and rifles

Public support is currently less then 50% for gun control. Toss in arguments over legalizing drugs and you've given yourself an impossible task. If you want to try the impossible why not go all in for something like an amendment as opposed to a cosmetic ban on some weapons?

"you need to get the guns out of the hands of people."
I believe in POSSIBLE goals - this is not.

Suicides- most suicides HAVE a gun long before they use it
Public support for universal background checks was around 90%
It a a start, but first WE have to vote out the nra / alec employees who voted against UBC

I have nothing against control, I'd vote for it, I just believe it's a waste of effort and largely cosmetic. The support for gun ownership has shifted back over 50% in polls, so no change is likely in the short term anyhow.

Your statistics comparing gun deaths internationally point out the solution isn't regulation and allowing guns to be in the hands of people, it's in removing them from society.

True the idea of total removal of handguns from society going no where now, probably not for generations, but it should be the ultimate goal in any effort to end gun violence.

1791 Number Two was ratified to promote/provide an armed militia to protect the United States from the overthrow of invaders (like the British or the South)!

2013 we have the mightiest military in the world, and the militia is no longer needed, same with #2!

The fucking yahoo gun nuts don't even bother to read their precious #2.

We have a habit of procrastinating on social legislation: We should have repealed #2 sometime after the Civil War ~ but that war still hasn't ended in some parts of the country ~ so now we have a neglected and entrenched false sense of root'n toot'n shoot'n entitlement. Which has become useful to TPTB.

Today this unfinished business has festered into an intolerable apocalypse that kills thousands of Americans every fucking year!! (I don't want to hear about any "Fast & Furious" or "Benghazi" from you gun nuts!)

Number two is obsolete: It stinks. We can't be OK with this horror!! We can't be saying that we want unfettered/unregulated gun ownership no matter how many people it kills!! The world is right for thinking we are nuts with guns. We're a century late in Amending this archaic/deadly/neglected Amendment.

SYG is insane: We can't legally grant cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering, Zimmermans, get out of jail free cards, so they can shoot people in cold blood with complete impunity. No matter what lies and propaganda NRA gun lobbyists and GOP 1% lobbyists spew to keep the 99% armed and afraid of each other, instead of united and overthrowing 1% tyranny, democratically!

We have to fix this terrible mess! ASA-FUCKING-P! Before one more American gets needlessly killed! And then let Real Justice prevail on the perpetrators!

I agree on the second amendment. Without the gun I believe stand your ground becomes a moot point.

SYG wasn't established for the "cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering" individuals to use to get out of jail free. If society decides to allow handguns to remain part of this culture then yes it should look at SYG and establish more specific guidelines or throw it out completely. The exact "rules" for when an individual can use deadly force vary from state to state and it might be time for a federal law to standardize the legal right of self defense.

Stand your ground wasn't an issue in Zimmerman's actual trial, it was not offered as a defense. It was more an issue in media speculation. Zimmerman said very little and followed his attorneys advice to stay silent. There would have been a hearing if Zimmerman had invoked SYG as his defense. His attorney chose not to because it would have required Zimmerman to take the stand at a SYG hearing and open him up to cross examination. They went with straight self defense. He claimed he was being attacked, there was no direct evidence to the contrary. Zimmerman got acquitted for the same reason many other defendants rightly or wrongly do. The prosecution could not prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crime he was charged with.

Unfortunately they don't require voters prove they can think or reason. Most of those that support the right to own a gun support what they see as the right to shoot anything that scares them. Support for gun ownership is back over 50% nationally and SYG in Florida still polls at 50% in favor and 31% opposed (If I were cynical I'd say the other 19% are afraid of being shot if they offered an honest opinion). As I said in answer to someone else, any change is likely to take generations. There are a lot of minds to change.

SYG was the guiding and restricting factor that allowed the cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering, Zimmerman's erroneous acquittal, that and of course the (R) Rick Scott-ALEC-NRA appointed and owned prosecution who threw the case. Giving the unruly public a show trial, to allow them at least a modicum of reason to claim justice was served however specious. Shame not being an issue to the right.

Zimmerman was guilty as sin, so like OJ, he did not take the stand because even an in the pocket, Floridian, prosecution would have to ask some questions he'd screw up on. Answering why he and not Trayvon was covered by SYG would be disastrous for the defense.

Given the truth, I'll go with the public.

My guess is that you are confident people won't get the truth, that the despicable SYG law is a good one and feel assured Number two will keep staining our constitution, just the way you like it. Motives confirmed.

My original point is eliminating guns is more important then eliminating SYG. I'd like to see handguns removed from society, it would save many more lives. We should consider how many lives are taken and look at the claims of how many lives are supposedly "saved" by guns and decide based on the entire picture, not react and make law based on anecdotes or cherry pick a heart breaking case or two. You're adding a completely different element to the discussion by talking about a single specific case.

Stand your ground laws don't legally entitle you to stalk someone, but that can be hard to prove when the only one side of the story can be told. I do agree they should be reviewed. Several studies have been done and they give conflicting or inconclusive results regarding the effectiveness of SYG. If the law is creating more problems then it's solving then SYG should be repealed. Not because of one case but because it proved to be a bad law in a majority of cases.

Whether by design or accident the prosecution failed to convince the jury of Zimmerman's guilt. My personal opinion is that he was guilty of something but I don't think it was murder and the prosecution overreached. However I didn't listen to every bit of testimony so my opinion isn't worth much in this case. Yes one juror claimed SYG entered into her decision, but it wasn't brought up by the defense. Zimmerman never made the claim and neither did his attorney.

I don't understand your comment that Trayvon wasn't covered by SYG. He was, had Zimmerman been killed in the altercation it could have been used in Trayvon's defense too. It's unfortunate that, to paraphrase from a movie, he brought fists to a gun fight. The problem isn't as simple as SYG, it's the guns we need to get rid of.

This morning I see one juror is making news on one of the morning shows by saying in her heart she thought Zimmerman was guilty, but had to put that emotional prejudice aside and look only at the evidence. She felt the state did not prove their case. Zimmerman could have spur the same story of being attacked, held down, and beaten with or without a SYG law in Florida and won an acquittal.

Your specious focus on repealing the Second Amendment is a dishonest ploy to defend the heavily (Koch Bros and ALEC friends) invested SYG disgrace of a law! SYG is another divide and conquer strategic legislation in the Class War waged by the 1% against the 99%!

I don't have any desire or intention to defend anyone. At present a majority are back to supporting SYG and handgun possession so it's all moot anyhow. Eliminating SYG is an emotional narcotic for people that feel a need to do something. It won't actually do much to change the number of gun deaths, there are just over 200 justifiable homicides a year using handguns (I don't know how many involve SYG). Of the 11,000 gun deaths a year most are suicides, accident, and murder, that have nothing to do with SYG.

Eliminating guns and amending the constitution are simply a personal wish. I know the majority won't ever go with it. That doesn't change the fact that it's the best solution. The second best alternative is almost as unlikely, stricter regulation. Bensdad offers up some solid statistics in his posts on the subject, but as I've said I believe at present the majority don't wish to ban or regulate.

You don't "desire" to be honest either. But at least you admit your defense of this sick and evil ALEC and Koch Bros sponsored and invested law, which is a cruel and sadistic legislative hoax on Americans! The narcotic is gun-liberty!

Rot in hell BASTARD!!!

Florida lawmakers agree to hearings on 'Stand Your Ground' law

An opponent of Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law wears a button against handguns outside a meeting on the law in Longwood, Florida, June 12, 2012. REUTERS/David Manning

By Tom Brown

MIAMI | Fri Aug 2, 2013 10:20pm EDT

(Reuters) - Florida lawmakers will hold hearings this fall on the state's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, which has become a lightning rod for criticism following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

The announcement on Friday by Will Weatherford, the speaker of Florida's House of Representatives, marked the biggest concession yet by the state's Republican leaders to protesters' demands for a top-to-bottom review of the law, which allows people in fear of serious injury to use deadly force [Murder at Will] to defend themselves rather than retreat.

You're operating under a misconception. I don't own a gun so on a personal level SYG is irrelevant to me. As an active voter I'm open to any law being reevaluated and changed once a convincing case is made. The problem is getting a majority to agree with proposed changes.

I believe that most politicians want to get reelected more then help anyone, so they will not actually make any real change as long as a majority don't support it. The fact is Florida lawmakers can hold all the hearings they want, but they are also aware of the fact that 53% of the voters in florida support SYG at present.

In my opinion the Florida legislature is playing the public. Wasting time on SYG and in the end they will do nothing because a majority don't want it changed. They could and should be working on gun control, which a Florida majority DO support. When you rant about ALEC, this is the kind of manipulation and distraction they might actually be capable of.

Altering the second amendment is, admittedly, a daydream. I would like to see it as a long term goal though. There are many nations that provide individual liberties and do not allow their citizens to walk around armed.

Religion, greed, conflict are more tied to human nature. Laws won't help there one way or the other. You can't effectively ban thoughts and feelings the way you could ban a thing like a gun.

If I listen to the Koch brothers I'd never bother to do anything at all to try to improve the world.

Not gonna happen. Not in the foreseeable future anyway. Probably never. Gun are so embedded in the fabric of America they are almost sacred to a lot of people. To tens of millions of people guns represent the very idea of being freedom loving Americans.

They will not disarm, they will not give up their guns. Hell, they won't even register their guns. They will ignore any laws requiring them to do so.

The only way to control guns is convincing people, over a couple of generations, that guns should be controlled. I'd say it would be a 100 year battle.

I agree, any change is going to take generations and whether it's more laws or an amendment it's likely an impossible task either way. If I am going to try to do the impossible though I'd prefer to work on the solution that will do the most good.